Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 26, 2010 10:32pm-11:02pm PST

11:32 pm
there has been a group of senior organizations and add it -- advocates and activists that have been working with my office, so a lot of the questions and framing of the previous report by the budget analyst office and then these new questions and research issues and areas have been driven by activism of senior organizations, but also people like me that our baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, the 72 million people in the u.s. that came about after the end of world war ii and that will be entering a very rapidly the senior ranks and demographic group within the city and around the country. the data that the previous report shows that 20% of the city put the population as people over 65 years old, but i think within 20 years, the population will increase, i think, 60%.
11:33 pm
the senior population will increase by about 60%. that is why it is critical to understand the housing needs and to develop stronger policies and to implement other task force recommendations of different offices of the mayor and task forces from previous years so that we become an aging friendly city in the future. but 255 hours to do this work by september, and this information should be very valuable for the task force an alliance of individuals that are working for stronger the gene-friendly city legislation for the future, so i urge support by my colleagues. -- the aging-friendly city legislation. supervisor chu: in our package, i see the motion on the legislation, but i do not have with me what the scope of the work might be. do you happen to have a copy of that anywhere? >> we did prepare a report for today's meeting. hopefully, you received that.
11:34 pm
we are now electronically sending all reports, so i am sure it will be sent to you. i can get a copy of that to you this afternoon, and there are a number of bullet points there that identify what the scope of services would be. supervisor chu: thank you. i would be happy to support this going forward, but if i could in the intervening week asked the budget analyst to send the document to me that has the scope of work as well as the hours. >> absolutely. supervisor mar: other questions? ok, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak out in support of this measure.
11:35 pm
i count myself as part of that aging baby boomer population, and i expect to live in san francisco and see the final demise of this once great city. i'm expecting to be proven wrong, but most of the information i have seen over the last four years indicates that i may be wrong or right. i think that i'm right. anyway, back to the subject matter, one of the recommendations as part of the listing here on the page mentions of the seniors getting proper services as they age. since so many seniors have to go to san francisco general hospital for necessary care, i would like to reiterate my request that san francisco general the audited financially based on the financial recommendations of the 2003 report which was issued by the
11:36 pm
board of supervisors. i'm still confused as to why a request to reexamine those recommendations is still meeting opposition on the board level because i think, realistically, if an audit was done of general hospital, it would make seniors feel more comfortable using the services there. as everyone knows, there was a recent horrible incident involving a disabled chinese man at san francisco general hospital, who was, in my opinion, traded very maliciously by the staff. as far as i can see, there has been a follow-up public report to explain why this victim lay bleeding in his bed and was ignored allegedly by the staff until the wife came later that night. things like that are an indication that there are problems at the hospital, so one
11:37 pm
would suspect that that needs to be checked out if seniors like myself have to go to general hospital and -- in the future for care, so i think if we are going to support this item, we need to examine closely services that need to be used by seniors as they get older. most of us seniors by the time we get to be 70, 80, and maybe 90 years old -- we are not going to have a choice as to where to go for service. most likely, most of us will be taken to general hospital, and then, i kind of hope that it is going to treat me and the others fairly rather than have that unfortunate incident happened to that disabled chinese man who incidently could not speak english. thank you. supervisor mar: 90. is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion on this item? so move, without objection. why don't we go back to item
11:38 pm
three? on the dcyf of it -- audit. i do not see supervisor alioto- pier. by their recommendations? should we continue this to the call of the chair? >> the clerk has just advised me that she has just heard from alioto-pier's office. >> bill barnes is recommending that you put it forward. supervisor mar: can you give a brief overview of how the scope has been narrowed significantly sell it is not a full audit of dcyf but as a very narrow one? >> certainly i can explain. our conversations with supervisor alioto-pier's office and her staff, and i do have, which i can submit to the clark, are our language on the
11:39 pm
rewording of the motion that is before you that it is my and a standing they were going to present today. supervisor mar: supervisor daly is suggesting that someone from dcyf, that we try to get comments from dcyf as well. >> should i finish? i do believe there are representatives from dcyf present also. there was concern about doing an entire audit. our understanding is that the controller's office has just completed some work looking at some of the programs and nonprofits that are provided. we have begun looking at that, and that will be one of the starting point. because of that, there was also concerned about early childhood education and care, and that
11:40 pm
area in specific is what we would be looking at. we would identify those city departments that actually provide early childhood education and care. these would include dcyf, human services agency, the first five commission, department of public health, recreation and park, and other city departments. we would also evaluate if the city policies and standards for providing early childhood care and education are contradictory or inconsistent. we have some understanding that there are different programs that are going on by different city agencies, and we would look at that. we would then identified as best practices -- identify those best practices for citywide early childhood education. this would be for san francisco and elsewhere. we would evaluate the duplication of services among city departments, and also those gaps in any program services,
11:41 pm
those services that were utilized and in underserved communities within the city and county. we would then also look at federal, state, local, or private foundation funding sources for programs for early childhood education service, and look at the city departments that are applying for these funds and how they are using this funding sources. we would also look at any potential overlaps or gaps in providing funding for these various early childhood education and care programs, and look at the department's oversight of the funds and the providers. we would not actually look at the nonprofit providers of these services, but look at it only from the city's perspective in providing that oversight. in terms of consistent criteria for evaluating the program performance, the use of the program evaluation and making program funding decisions. we will also evaluate the city's
11:42 pm
early childhood education care coordinate with child health programs. this could be a potential problem. we would also identify opportunities for improved coordination and consolidation of the department's early childhood care and education program. we estimate that this audit or study would require approximately 1000 hours of our staff time and that we could complete it by the end of october. again, as i indicated from the earlier audit, we have the capacity within our existing contract to take on this study of early childhood care and education at this time. we would commence it immediately, especially during supervisors break when we will
11:43 pm
have available staff to place on this assignment, and even if both of these assignments were given to us at this time, we would have additional capacity to take on other work when the committee and the board resumed. on that note, i would indicate that in discussions with the chair, we have talked about coming back before this committee in september to talk about the overall work plan moving forward. in terms of other projects, we would welcome other projects and assignments from this committee and other members of the board as we come back to you in september after your break to talk about our additional assignments going forward. supervisor mar: thank you. we have comments from
11:44 pm
representatives from dcyf. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you very much for inviting us to comment. in general, our office is actually ready to respond to the audit. in particular, we look forward to the narrowing the scope of this audit. when we first heard about the dcyf study and audit, we were curious to know in what ways we could participate further. since we play a smaller role in the larger investment, we are glad to hear that this will be an interdepartmental effort, and we look forward to your further guidance to cooperate with the office. >> it is active in, i guess. city-wide child-care
11:45 pm
administrator, and to echo that comment, we really welcome the opportunity to work with the departmental audit as we jointly fund, joint discussions around policy and planning and services, and also work with eph. it will be a welcome opportunity to dialogue about how we might be able to interconnect with services and programs. supervisor mar: can i just ask a question? i know that through the early childhood education funds, there has been an effort to try to urge the city to look at better coordination of early childhood education program in. could you talk a little bit about what is currently going on with dcyf and hsa and first five and other early childhood education in duties? >> are you speaking of the mayor's proposal to online the
11:46 pm
two city departments? at this time, dcyf and hsa have been hosting community forums. we had two. they were duplicates of one another, where we shared the background and history of the effort to align city departments around early care and education policy planning and financing. we spoke about the vision for early care education in the city. we also spoke about objectives and the next community forum will be held next month in august. first 5 has been present, but again, the mayor's directive was city departments, so they are engaged in the conversation and have shed their commitment to be a strategic partner. that is where we are today. -- shared their commitment to be a strategic partner. supervisor mar: sounds like this 1000-hour service of it and study, to be completed by halloween some time, should be helpful in this process of
11:47 pm
increasing efficiencies within our departments and better communication for early childhood education, so i think this is a very good use of the powers of the budget analyst, and i think this will help inform and guide some of the efforts already going on as well, but thank you for the great work. supervisor chu: just a clarification to the budget analyst -- from my understanding, this will now be an audit that is not necessarily only focused on dcyf. it will be a number of other departments. >> department of public health, because of some of the child health programs. supervisor chu: ok, so the document we have before us will have to be changed then. i'm imagining we will have an amendment as a whole, particularly if we do send this out to the full board of supervisors, but from my understanding, the scope of the audit has changed such that now,
11:48 pm
we will no longer be focusing solely on dcyf. we'll also be concentrating on first five, hsa, and and organizations in the city that do have a hand at early childhood education in the city, correct? >> that is correct, but my understanding it is actually a narrowing of the focus. supervisor chu: right, and in terms of the population, the population now is early childhood, so we are talking about zero to five, i would imagine? >> i believe that is correct. that would probably be one of the first tasks we would do, define the scope. >> when we talk about the joint founders, and we primarily talk about early childhood, but we also fund child care, which goes up to 12, so many of our programs that serve the 05 population also did after-school time, so some time there are
11:49 pm
linkages, but i would imagine that the scope of the work, because the program serves children up to that age, that it will cover children older than five -- programs that serve the zero to five population. supervisor chu: one of the issues is that the lines on page two, lines 1214, authorizes the use of the commission to recommend programs and areas of importance to be reviewed. that probably would not be relevant, given the fact that we are concentrating on 05, i would imagine -- on zero to five, i would imagine. ok, that is all my questions. supervisor mar: supervisor, were you suggesting those as amendments that should be added this language into our motion? supervisor chu: i was actually trying to make sure that i do have clarification because the document before us does not have reference to any of the other departments.
11:50 pm
if we are focusing on the 025 population, then the youth commission would not necessarily be the best organization to provide programmatic descriptions -- on the zero to five population. supervisor mar: this is amended language? >> that was the motion that was handed in earlier. >> that is the language we drafted and submitted to the supervisor's office. i believe that will be an amendment as a whole that we will submit. i do not know if they are going to make additional edits to the prior to submission. i suspect that is most of the changes that would be made. supervisor daly: i would actually make a motion to
11:51 pm
forward this item to the full board without recommendation. i am interested in hearing from the sponsor of the item was the impetus for this audit is. it seems to be looking for work and in trying to craft its so that it makes sense, so -- as opposed to there being a clearing call from the public or some crisis of confidence or something that was found through budget deliberations or engagement with the community that brings us to hear, so i'm not opposed to the item or this being done, but i would like to hear from the sponsor why she thinks we should be going in this direction. so that would be my motion. supervisor mar: ok, and i think that is a valid point. supervisor chu: i'm wondering if we could -- just a friendly suggestion. perhaps what we could do is make
11:52 pm
an amendment as a whole and except those that are initial draft reports because that represents a narrowing of the scope that the budget analyst has been in discussions with so that at least that will be part of the but the -- a public document that goes forward to the board of supervisors the public can look at, and i would be happy to send it forward with recommendations that -- without recommendation so we can hear from the project sponsor. supervisor mar: sounds like there is no objection to the friendly amendment as an amendment as a whole, and also, there is a motion to move this forward without recommendation to the full board. is there any objection to that motion? seeing none, we are going to move this as amended to the full board without recommendation. any other comments, colleagues? did we open this up for public comment? no, we have not, so before taking action on this, is there anyone from the public that would like to speak >> -- that
11:53 pm
would like to speak? >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak out in opposition to this, so in a certain sense, i am agreeing with supervisor daly. the reason i'm opposing this is that it seems to me that this organization was very well run, and according to the newspaper reports, she was removed and necessarily, so if we are going to do any audit of that agency, i think we ought to start with why she was removed. according to my research, everyone agreed that she had done such a fine job, but somehow, she met the same fate as myself. in other words, if you are an able city employee, somehow, they find a reason to remove you. anyway, back to this motion, i think it is more relevant since ms. newman repeatedly says that
11:54 pm
she has so many hours to do audits. as a public service to san francisco, especially the poor and disabled, we ought to be doing it on san francisco general hospital, and if ms. newman feels she has enough time, we ought to do the whole department of public health. it's still baffles my mind why almost every supervisor has opposed any formal inquiry into san francisco general hospital and department of public health. according to ms. newman's own words, she said she had plenty of ours, and in order to maybe expedite the process, since i myself work for 20 years at general hospital, i would gladly donate unlimited number of hours to point the budget analyst's office into areas where they should be checking this out. there was a 2003 financial audit done and presented to the board
11:55 pm
of supervisors. i'm still wondering why there is still opposition on the board level to doing a review to see whether those recommendations are carried out. doing something like that, i think, is far more helpful to the poor and disabled in san francisco who depend on the hospital's services rather than doing it on an agency, according to my research, that has not really had any problems. i have not seen any reports lately saying that there were problems with that agency. for the record, i did speak with supervisor alioto-pier regarding an audit of general hospital back in 2007, and she politely refused to support that idea, so i agree with supervisor daly that maybe her thinking is a little off on this matter. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else from the
11:56 pm
public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. there is a motion to amend this that has been moved without objection, and then we are going to move this forward to the full board without recommendations, without objection. so move. is there anything else on the agenda? >> no, there are no further items. supervisor mar: thank you, everyone, for coming. meeting is adjourned.
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm
12:00 am
>> let me make one announcement, item 5 a is removed from the consent calendar and will be heard on the general calendar. the ringing and use of all cell phones, pagers, and similar devices are prohibited at this
12:01 am
meeting. the chair may order the removal of any persons responsible for the ringing of these devices. in order to facilitate an orderly meeting, we ask that you fill out a blue card if you wish to speak on an item. the commission may ask questions of staff after the items have been disclosed. we are on item number two, which is